Related coverage

As I write, James Pattinson has given Hashim Alma a second chance by bowling him out on a no-ball.

It was the fourth in the match up until that point; twice each for South Africa and Australia. They have both been let down by sloppy and careless discipline.

How hard is it to plant half your foot on the good side of the white line, or, god forbid, your entire foot behind the line?

The extra hundredth of a second here or there in pace surely cannot be that advantageous to the bowler?

The crease, if we trust the assessment of Ian Healy, is approximately five centimetres thick, or two inches in the old scale. It means that when a bowler who has completely cleared the line has missed his ideal mark by at least five centimetres. This is a problem.

It is bad enough for the team to have to concede a run and have the batsman face an extra ball, but it is plain unforgivable for the team to miss out on a dismissal because of it. The bowler has let his team down and has no one else to blame but himself.

ABC Radio echoed the thoughts of some South African fans who suggested financial penalties for the bowlers who take a wicket on a no-ball. It’s so crazy it just might work.

Maybe Australia should charge $1000 per wicket taking on a no-ball? My foot would be six inches behind the line if I was forced to shell out a grand…

In limited overs cricket, bowlers are well punished for their transgression by making the next ball a free hit. No-balls have declined in the one-day game as a result.

Something tells me that after this match, Graeme Smith and Michael Clarke wouldn’t be entirely opposed to wanting that rule in Test cricket either!

The Club Roar Awards have been run and won! Olympic Gold Medallist and all-round legend Steven Bradbury has announced who's getting a share in $10,000! Check out the winners HERE!

Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

The Crowd Says (6) | Page of Comments

$1000 for a wicket on a no-ball, is possibly the silliest thing I have ever heard on The Roar.

Firstly no bowler, particularly fast bowler wants to waste all that energy bowling 140-150km/h wrecking ball down again because it was a no-ball. Secondly, getting a wicket on a no ball must be one of the worst feelings in the game at the moment, particularly with this stupid law that an umpire can check every wicket delivery for a no ball it is killing the entertainment value (of which cricket can ill afford).

Thirdly, bowling is a rhythm art, much like the batsman having the need to touch his pads before every delivery, the fast bowler has his run up strides marked out, his position of where he is use to bowling from, both on the crease and from hand. Since young fellas they have built themselves on this rhythm year after year and it has got them to where they are today. In junior cricket 90% of the bowlers bowl with their foot right on the crease for that little extra to help them as much as possible.

You cannot simply change that by adding a stride at the top of the run up, it’s going to take a lot of time. Also the bowler can’t afford to worry consistently where his foot is as this added concentration will stop him performing at his best and fastest.

The worst thing is the that many no balls would not be called by millimeters however as soon as there is wicket it’s all eyes on for the smallest on margins, it’s getting almost impossible to get a batsmen out.

I am with Richie on this one and saying they should go back to the back foot rule, seems simpler.

Yeah, I was just taking the mickey with the $1000 fine. However, I wouldn’t mind see it enforced for spin bowlers…it is simply in excusable when they no-ball!

What you are saying about most things is quite right, bowling is an rhythm art. But saying it cant happen is plain rubbish. Since the free-hit rule came into being in ODI’s the no-balls have plummeted. The bowlers (who incidentally also play test cricket) simply changed their stride. If they can change their bowling rhythm in ODI’s and be mindful of their front foot AND still be elite bowlers, then there is no argument or no excuse why they cant transfer that skill into Test cricket.

I wont say that the no-balls cost either team the game, but it certainly removed any critical advantage they would have had.